t is. But, of course, it was a tupo. Which you knew but like Hillary you have to lie to make some sort of point.
Have you *ever* looked in a mirror, stupid?
I wouldn't expect you to understand what you've written. You're too stupid.
-- You and I both know that I'm not stupid, so it seems to me that your claiming that I am is put _you_ , not me, in Hillary's camp.
-- Nonsense. You besmirch Hans Camenzind's image since you're not clever at circuit design, are jealous that you couldn't achieve what he did in your lifetime, and you want everyone to follow you into your abyss.
: 555 as much as he thinks I ought to but he seems to be able to live with th at. e
ners.
I don't see how. The 555 was brilliant - from 1971 to about 1980 - but the march of progress rapidly made it sub-optimal in most of it's applications thereafter.
I am actually tolerably clever at circuit design, but I don't design integr ated circuits. Hans Camenzind might have been good, but he wasn't Bob Widla r or Barry Gilbert.
Hans Camemzind's book, "Designing Analog Chips" ISBN 978-1-58939-718-7 devo tes about half of chapter 11 to the 555, and makes it clear that the most b rilliant part of the development was getting it into an 8-pin package. He p oints out where he could have done better, at the time.
y something that worked, even if it's decidedly sub-optimal compared with w hat you could do today.
For you. You can't be bothered working out a better way of solving familiar problems.
you are doing, the same old solution is always the obvious way to get the j ob done.
ecific - situations. That's not what's moving most of the 555's off the she lves.
Same way as you would if you weren't a one-eyed 555 fan.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
-- I disgree, in that it still shines as a peripheral real-time device.
"Shines"? It's a fairly crummy timer with a built-power switch which can't switch much power. Any small MOSFET can do better at the switching, and cheap single-chip microprocessors are a lot more flexible, and more precise timers.
When it was invented there wasn't a lot of competition for the slots that it could fill. Nowadays there's almost always a better way of doing a slightly better job than the 555 could ever manage
Few people are. Most of the world's work gets done by people who are competent, rather than inspired.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
It's not a processor, it's not a power switch, it's an interface device. A/D converter, timer, debouncer, VCO... the breadth of applications is impressive.
It's performance in any of these applications is less than impressive.
My argument is that these days, anything you can do with a 555 you can do better, and often cheaper, with something developed more recently.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
-- +/- about 1% timing accuracy over temp isn't all that bad for a lot of uses, considering that few, if any, MOSFETs are monolithically associated with a timer, and most (all?) microcontrollers don't sport highish current output ports.
-- "It's" is a contraction and it isn't possessive. Can you support your allegations with at least one example, please? John Fields
:
e:
ote:
rote:
t the march of progress rapidly made it sub-optimal in most of it's applica tions thereafter.
't switch much power. Any small MOSFET can do better at the switching, and cheap single-chip microprocessors are a lot more flexible, and more precise timers.
That is the point. Lumping a crummy power switch in with a crummy timer som etimes gives you an adequate solution. Mostly you can do better by separati ng the functions.
t it could fill.
It's stellar sales history is legacy slots in legacy designs. There are leg acy designers around who put it into new products, but current sales aren't a good quide to what should be designed in. The 741 op amp is also popular , despite being utterly obsolete.
ob than the 555 could ever >manage.
The real problem is that if the 555 is your preferred tool, you ignore situ ations where a more capable device could offer the user more services - oft en services that the user hasn't thought of.
If you wanted to know exactly when it would go off, an off-air time referen ce is hard to beat.
I'm not quite sure that improvised explosive devices (which is what I under stand by IED) ought to be designed at all, and I'm fairly sure that if I di d design one I'd be risking being locked up as a terrorist - maybe Texas tr eats such work as a legitimate contribution to the local well-regulated mil itia.
npetent, rather than inspired.
Mostly it's generated by the profit motive. Somebody wants to do something
- usually to make money - and we can make money out of putting hardware tog ether that will do what they want done, ideally, what they would have wante d done if they'd fully understood the potential capabilities of the hardwar e available.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
e:
e:
of progress rapidly made it sub-optimal in most of it's applications there after.
e.
can't switch much power. Any small MOSFET can do better at the switching, and cheap single-chip microprocessors are a lot more flexible, and more pre cise timers.
e.
o better, and often cheaper, with something developed more recently.
True. We all make typos.
It's an assertion, rather than an allegation, and I can't be bothered. As I seem to have mentioned, I never found an application for a 555 in anything I designed, though I did look at it once or twice, so it would require the exercise of imagination in a singularly unappealing area.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
-- Th 555 is popular precisely because those functions have been combined and because of the myriad applications it can support. It _is_, of course, possible to get better accuracy and higher current out by separating the functions, but why gild the lily when it's perfect for the application at hand?
-- Providing proof of an assertion is often unappealing when there is none to be had. John Fields
-- Indeed, but oft recurring grammatical gaffes aren't.
-- So, you can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk?
sometimes gives you an adequate solution. Mostly you can do better by separ ating the functions.
was
It was never perfect - or even acceptable - for any of the applications I c onsidered it for.
The universe of applications for which is might be the best solution seems to be pretty small, these days.
The universe of situations where you can get away with using it is larger, though probably not as large as you like to think.
that it could fill.
The 741 is another legacy part that still sells in large numbers. It's a bi t easier to make the case that it shouldn't, and it does give the lie to yo ur proposition that selling in large numbers means that a part isn't obsole te.
It's more a case of lemons and lemons.
r job than the 555 could ever >manage.
ituations where a more capable device could offer the user more services - often services that the user hasn't thought of.
The justification for the higher priced fancy solution would be in the extr a functions you could squeeze in - brown-out protection or the like.
rence is hard to beat.
You asked the question, I gave you an answer. What's beside the point?
derstand by IED) ought to be designed at all, and I'm fairly sure that if I did design one I'd be risking being locked up as a terrorist - maybe Texas treats such work as a legitimate contribution to the local well-regulated militia.
Indeed "well-regulated militias" are pretty much useless against regular mi litary forces, and when the amendment was written Washington had just spent a few years training up his militias up to the point where they could more or less hold their own against British regulars.
The amendment was fatuous nonsense when it was written, and it hasn't got a ny less fatuous since.
competent, rather than inspired.
ng - usually to make money - and we can make money out of putting hardware together that will do what they want done, ideally, what they would have wa nted done if they'd fully understood the potential capabilities of the hard ware available.
Which was? I'm not fond of inspirational nonsense at the best of times, and your sentence was more nonsensical than most of it's ilk.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
rote:
te:
rote:
rch of progress rapidly made it sub-optimal in most of it's applications th ereafter.
vice.
ich can't switch much power. Any small MOSFET can do better at the switchin g, and cheap single-chip microprocessors are a lot more flexible, and more precise timers.
.
n do better, and often cheaper, with something developed more recently.
s I seem to have mentioned, I never found an application for a 555 in anyth ing I designed, though I did look at it once or twice, so it would require the exercise of imagination in a singularly unappealing area.
As you demonstrate when you sing the praises of the non-existent virtues of the 555.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
My dignity didn't come into it. It wouldn't do what I needed it to do.
Beats me. Where did my dignity get into the picture?
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
-- That doesn't mean that it wasn't perfect for applications beyond your grasp.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.